Explosive Saudi 9/11 Evidence Still Ignored By Media

Zacarias-MoussaouiOn Monday, attorneys representing victims of the 9/11 attacks filed papers alleging substantial Saudi financial support for Al Qaeda and terrorism, including a plan to shoot down Air Force One. This Saudi support supposedly continued up to shortly before 9/11. Donors included leading members of the royal family.

These extraordinary allegations came in rare testimony from behind the walls of a Supermax prison by the so-called “20th hijacker,” Zacharias Moussaoui, a convicted Al Qaeda operative.

The New York Times took him quite seriously:

Mr. Moussaoui’s testimony, if judged credible, provides new details of the extent and nature of that [Saudi] support in the pre-9/11 period. In more than 100 pages of testimony, filed in federal court in New York on Monday, he comes across as calm and largely coherent, though the plaintiffs’ lawyers questioning him do not challenge his statements.

One of the people Moussaoui says he met as an Al Qaeda representative was Prince Salman, who in January became the new king of Saudi Arabia. Others he claims to have met include Turki al-Faisal, who at the time was Saudi intelligence chief, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the longtime Saudi ambassador to the U.S.

Both Turki and Bandar were very close with George H.W. Bush and his family. At the time of the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush was president of the United States—and in what was seemingly a chilling accident of fate, was in Sarasota himself on 9/11. His brother Jeb, now a leading contender for the presidency of the United States, was at the time the governor of Florida.

The Times goes on to say that Moussaoui’s testimony, if found to be factually accurate, could change our understanding of Saudi Arabia and its relationship to 9/11:

[T]he extent and nature of Saudi involvement in Al Qaeda, and whether it extended to the planning and financing of the Sept. 11 attacks, has long been a subject of dispute.

***

That may be so, but the Times, like the rest of the traditional media, has ignored earlier evidence of deep Saudi royal ties to the 9/11 attacks—evidence that isn’t dependent on a man whose sanity has been questioned.

Back in 2011, a small non-profit news outfit in South Florida, the Broward Bulldog, which does primarily local stories, published an article that also appeared in a major traditional newspaper, the Miami Herald. Despite the story’s explosive content, it was widely ignored.

That article revealed that a well-heeled Saudi family, living in a gated community in Sarasota, Florida, had direct connections to the hijackers. Phone records documented communication, dating back more than a year, between this Saudi family and the alleged plot leader, Mohammed Atta, his hijack pilots and 11 of the other hijackers. In addition, records from the guard house at the gated community showed Atta and other hijackers had visited the house.

911TowersThe family left the country abruptly just before the 9/11 attacks. Family members abandoned enough valuable possessions—such as three cars—to testify to the speed of their departure.

The article also revealed that the FBI had quietly investigated the family and documented numerous interactions between them and the alleged hijackers. They, however, neglected to tell Congressional investigators and the evidence didn’t appear in the 9/11 Commission Report.

You might think these revelations would attract widespread attention, considering that 15 of the 19 purported hijackers were Saudi citizens. Yet the Bulldog story generated barely a blip.

The Flying Prince’s Connection

Next, our small non-profit news outfit, WhoWhatWhy, which covers primarily international and national investigative stories, took the reporting to another level.

Our story established that the owner of the house, Esam Ghazzawi, was a direct lieutenant to a powerful member of the Saudi royal family who’d learned to fly in Florida years earlier. Ghazzawi was director of the UK division of EIRAD Trading and Contracting Co. Ltd., which among other things, holds the Saudi franchise for many multinational brands including UPS. Ghazzawi’s boss, the chairman of EIRAD Holding Co. Ltd., is Prince Sultan bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz Al-Saud.

PRINCE SULTAN BIN SALMAN AND JOHN O. CREIGHTONA fighter pilot who also flew on a Space Shuttle mission, Prince Sultan is the son of the new Saudi king, Salman.

WhoWhatWhy’s reporting raised serious questions about whether high-ranking Saudis were directly involved with the 9/11 operation, and whether the U.S. government covered up what it knew.

WhoWhatWhy paid a major news distribution outfit to send our story to thousands of news outlets, major and minor, in the United States. Again, the silence was deafening.

***

The debate about Moussaoui’s newly released testimony centers on whether he can be trusted. But there is no debate about the Sarasota evidence we uncovered. We’re still waiting for the Times, along with the rest of the mainstream media, to acknowledge that material.

Whatever happened in Florida, whatever the veracity of Moussaoui’s claims, anyone with an open mind will smell enough smoke to wonder whose interests are being served by pretending there’s no fire in the Saudi-9/11 connection.

For more on the Bush family’s relationship to the Saudi royal family, see Russ Baker’s book, Family of Secrets.

Where else do you see journalism of this quality and value?

Please help us do more. Make a tax-deductible contribution now.

Our Comment Policy

Keep it civilized, keep it relevant, keep it clear, keep it short. Please do not post links or promotional material. We reserve the right to edit and to delete comments where necessary.

print

24 responses to “Explosive Saudi 9/11 Evidence Still Ignored By Media”

  1. Title

    […]here are some links to sites that we link to since we feel they are worth visiting[…]

  2. Rick says:

    Rick from Cuba ; This “event”…Started along time before 09-11-2001: ,If all of you good citizens read further, all of you will really start getting that Frontal Cortex “numbing & throb ” feeling of betrayal or at best benign obfuscation and failure of duty by individuals in every level of State and federal government. Yes in 1993 there was WTC-1 , the Ramsi Youzef “bomb maker” and the infamous Brooklyn Mosque ….. The J.T.T.Force led by Uber rising Star P. Fitz and his staff who refused to listen!! So yes 9-11 was a game changer …..That game had started along time before the aforementioned time period.

  3. JMo says:

    Russ Baker, I would like to know your take on 9/11 conspiracy theories. I think its quite obvious that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition. What say you?

  4. polfilmblog says:

    “The Times goes on to say that Moussaoui’s testimony, if found to be factually accurate, could change our understanding of Saudi Arabia and its relationship to 9/11”

    It doesn’t change MY understanding of 9/11. It’s been high treason since 2002, when Senator Graham named “foreign governments” aiding and abetting the hijackers. Everything Bush and now Obama have done to protect the Saudis from justice is technically “aid and comfort” to the enemy: high treason.

  5. whatwaysup says:

    Speaking of FBI phone records at Moussaoui’s trial. There is an extraordinary situation here; whereby a world view dominated by key OCT narrator Barbara OLSON’s phone call to her husband Ted, informing the world of ‘Middle Eastern Hi-Jackers, red bandana’s and box-cutters , cutting throats”.

    This narrative is now accepted as official in terms of popular memory. Yet, FBI records presented at Moussaoui’s trial record her number was “unconnected,” lasting “0 seconds”.

    She sure got a lot said in zero seconds.

  6. Elim says:

    The only reason the US government should cover up for the Saudis is because they were part of the plot.

  7. Legalized Torture says:

    “Explosive Saudi 9/11 Evidence Still Ignored By Media”

    Same with the legalized torture, legalized kidnappings, legalized drone-bombings of kids playing soccer 7422 miles away from here, secret courts, secret warrants, legalized police brutality, legalized financial fraud, massive wiretappings of absolutely everyone and everything, a worldwide web of clandestine detention/torture centers overseas, a state-controlled news media, legalized food poisoning, legalized electoral fraud, a corrupt judiciary, legalized highway robbery (aka Civil Asset Forfeitures), legalized market data manipulation, and forcing the population to buy overpriced “healthcare” plans practically at gunpoint.

    The Amerikan presstitute ‘newsmedia’ only reports on what they’re TOLD to report.

  8. therealamericro says:

    Great article.

    I would suggest Whowhatwhy staff and readers, if they have not already, watch 9/11 the New Pearl Harbor, seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M.

    Not one of the questions posed by the documentary were answered by John McCain or Popular Mechanics, not one (1) single question.

  9. ICFubar says:

    As the 9/11/2001 “truthers” continue to unravel the official story the perpetrators of the 9/11 event may be casting about for further obfuscation with the Saudi gambit. Make no mistake the American “deep state” is up to it’s eyeballs in this mass murder, theft and cover up of this and other crimes, along with a cast of co conspirators which probably includes the Saudis as go between providers of cash to operatives.

  10. llewellynh says:

    This isn’t new to me but I know I read it way back then. I knew about Bandar’s wife and the family in Florida as well as the bin Laden flight to Saudi Arabia right after 9-11. I did read it on Friday in the NYTimes and was surprised they didn’t know this a long time ago.

  11. CosimodiRondo says:

    Nothing to see here. Everyone knows you can’t trust anything a filthy terrorist says. Unless of course, it’s said while you’re torturing him and what he says supports your pre-made decision to start a war with some country that had nothing to do with terrorism. In that case, the veracity is indisputable, but you’ll just have to trust us because it’s all secret.

  12. Operation_Terror_com says:

    If you assume Moussaoui is credible, and I think he is, he has no ties to the 19 hijacker patsies. They tried to convict him for 9/11 related counts but failed to do so. It seems that the Radical Fundamentalist Unit of the FBI had to conceal his connections to Blackwater and Nick Berg.

    The most interesting evidence that came out of his trial was when his defense asked for the records for the cell phones calls made by the 9/11 passengers. The FBI changed the story and claimed they don’t exist because the calls were made by on-board AirFones even though ten of the victim’s relatives saw the caller IDs of the victim’s cell phones.

  13. omniadeo says:

    Strange that “StudyYourHistory” would discourage us from doing just that.

    And there is absolutely no contradiction between accepting the following two positions:

    1) the two Towers and WTC-7 were brought down by controlled demolition after planes were flown into them
    2) there was a concerted effort by FBI and various military/intelligence apparatus to hide Moussaoui’s connections to a plot to hijack planes

    My personal belief is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition, the planes were remote controlled, and the “hijackers” (whose identities were mostly fake) had no idea that they were going to die.

    Why that would keep me from studying Moussaoui, the FBI and the Saudi connection to various intelligence operations inside and surrounding the plot is beyond me.

    Call me names and the amazing research of the 911 timeline “BS’ if you like, but not everything interesting about 911 fits on a t-shirt.

    • llewellynh says:

      My problem with the thought that controlled demolition was used on the twin towers is that in 1993 demolition had already been tried and I can still see the faces of the people running out and away. They were blackened with smoke and were having an awful time breathing. All of the walls on the interior areas affected were also black with smoke.

      On 9-11 that just didn’t happen. Before the building fell, the air seemed almost clear but with the full failures it was sheetrock dust and all the office debris and paper work that was around. And I did visit during that first week and nothing other than that one fire that could have smacked of demolition was still burning but that could have been caused by any sort of tank of gas really.

      I don’t disagree that the majority of the high jackers probably did not know they were going to die.

      And I remember Silverstein being quoted I think in the Village Voice at the time as saying he wanted building 7 brought down. It did strike me as odd that he was empowered to call that shot and many of the subsequent rebuilding ones as well. I thought he overstepped by miles the bounds of his job description.

      I hope that within the next ten years that things will be reinvestigated because too many people seem very unhappy with the results of the Kean commission’s work and some of it I understand. But enough time has passed now and emotions are much less raw and it really would make sense to start again to try to understand better just what did happen.

    • omniadeo says:

      I shouldn’t debate the controlled demolition hypothesis here because there are many more qualified who do it very well all over the web and it is off topic and rude to our hosts.

      I cannot help but note, however, that you are comparing a fertilizer truck bomb in the basement of one tower to the alleged use of nano-thermite in strategic positions along the steel beam connectors of both towers. Also your observations on your visit a week after the towers came down is trumped by aerial infra red photography. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html

      I wouldn’t hold your breath for a new official investigation. The absurdity of the old one had nothing to do with emotion. Put aside your own emotional resistance to learning that this kind of evil is really possible in the world and do your own investigation into the biggest big lie ever.

  14. John Cathy says:

    The 28 pages is all BS. A distraction to get everyone off track.

    Two planes took down 3 buildings. Say that 3 times and close your eyes and think about it.

  15. StudyYourHistory says:

    Suckers. This whole Moussari / 20th “highjacker” red herring-BS is contingent upon your dumb-assed acceptance of the power control group / national security apparatus’ MSM-fellated fairytale that SOMEHOW this fictitious, ragtag bunch actually defeated the US’ trillion-dollar defense system on 9/11/01, in the first place.
    All designed to take your desperate-to-believe eyes off of their treasonous ball.
    I say again, SUCKERS.

  16. Trends1 says:

    The media has never honestly addressed the conduct of the intelligence community in the lead up to 9/11. 60 Minutes interviewed former FBI agent Ali Soufan and addressed his credible claim of CIA obstruction by running a CIA talking point that described the charge as “baseless.” Reporter Lara Logan was later suspended for her report on Benghazi but evidently 60 Minutes management had no problem dismissing CIA obstruction by way of a CIA spokesperson. Peter Bergen didn’t have an explanation in his book Manhunt. Kurt Eichenwald didn’t discuss it in his book 500 Days. Greg Barker got access to some Alec Station personnel for his documentary Manhunt but he had nothing noteworthy to say about the al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar saga.

    The obvious question–what is the link between Saudi involvement and the conduct of US intelligence? Were US intelligence officials ordered to back off al Qaeda investigations? Is this a sick game whereby US officials are trying to pretend that they had no idea that something horrible would happen if they ordered US intelligence to back off? Should we believe the Saudis thought it made perfect sense to sponsor a massive terrorist attack on US soil? We don’t have answers to these questions because government officials do not believe the public has any right to this information. For their part the media goes along with the Stasi-like secrecy and refuses to interview Alec Station or FBI agents who obstructed the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar investigation.

  17. oh_look says:

    Also see ‘Able Danger’ and Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer. Shaffer wrote a book in which the Pentagon bought up and destroyed most of 1st edition:

    “That was before the Pentagon got involved in the eleventh hour, bought
    up most of the only copies of the first edition in print, destroyed them,
    then forced the publisher into redacting large, critical portions of
    the book before it could print the second edition in 2010.”

    See:

    http://original.antiwar.com/vlahos/2011/01/13/lt-col-shaffer-vs-the-pentagon/

  18. After all these years and with what we now know, the only possible thing left is that FBI HQ, CIA, State, NSA everyone at one level or another thought that the Saudis had this plot under control. That they were just running it to smoke out some bad guys, maybe OBL himself. Hell, maybe even some of the Sauds thought that as well — the Florida branch certainly seemed to leave in a “holy shit!” hurry. This would explain the repeated stiff-arms of the field offices. I think the Saudis had told someone in the US security arm that ZM was a loose end who had been written out of Atta’s op, and that to go hard at ZM would queer the entire effort.

    In fact, it seems ZM’s arrest sped up the 9/11 timeline, but did not stop the op. Why? Why was Atta so sure he could proceed, but had to move faster? In the days immediately following ZM’s arrest Atta sets the date, tells Ramzi bin al-Shibh in Hamburg, who is supposed to tell OBL. This has all the hallmarks of someone telling Atta that they can stall some, but ZM will spin out interesting connections to Ahmed Ressam and al-Shibh, certainly.

    I think the FBI thought it had a gold-plated Saudi CT informant, possibly one who had fingered Ressam and his clumsy bomb plot which OBL wanted nothing to do with. The supposed “sleeper cells” were roughly known, with in-country Sauds providing updates on their doings, more or less. When word was passed that ZM was toxic and in need of a soft-touch, I cannot see why the Bureau would’ve pushed back. There was no way the CT “experts” in DC were going to burn so precious a resource just because a couple SAs in Minnesota, Oklahoma, or Arizona started getting worried about planes crashing into buildings. They had this, they were professionals.

    https://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/main/moussaoui.html
    http://reason.com/archives/2006/06/06/how-the-fbi-let-9-11-happen

    • RobiDon says:

      The possibility crossed my mind very early on that
      9/11 was another Reichstag Fire, only instead of being used by the Nazis to
      implicate the Communists, 9/11 was used by the G.W. Bush Administration to implicate
      both the secular state of Iraq, and the entire Muslim population in the War On
      Terror. And of course, it ushered in the Patriot Act with concomitant erosion
      of our civil rights.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

  19. omniadeo says:

    I understand the need for brevity, but to call Moussaoui “an Al Quaeda operative” and “the socalled ’20th hijacker'” hardly does justice to his documented history.

    http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&other_al-qaeda_operatives=moussaoui

    (or more completely, here:
    http://www.historycommons.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=moussaoui&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go)

    My favorites:

    Moussaoui (and/or his roomate Hussein al-Attas, arrested with Moussaoui shortly after 911) asks the future 2004 beheading victim Nick Berg for his password to send an email during a 10 minute ride on a bus in Oklahoma in 1999 and Berg gives it to him.

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a99bergmoussaoui#a99bergmoussaoui

    and:

    August 23-27, 2001: Minnesota FBI Agents ‘Absolutely Convinced’ Moussaoui
    Plans to Hijack Plane; They Are Undermined by FBI Headquarters

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a082302fisa#a082302fisa

    For those interested in taking their 911 research beyond engineering issues (as important as those are) there is no better place to start than Moussaoui.

  20. MarkTenneyNewMathDoneRight says:

    This also comes close enough to the Bush family for a trier of fact to conclude they were culpable.